BREAKING: More than 200 Bush, McCain, and Romney Alum just endorsed Kamala Harris

[Phys251]

I dunno....the Repug insanity of the past 30 years has made socialism look a lot more attractive.

There is absolutely no safety net at all for young people in this country anymore. People graduate from college with mountains of debt and starting salaries that completely suck. I would not be opposed to "socialism" if I was young person starting out in this country.

Agreed. Unfettered capitalism has screwed over a lot of young people, and some of them see socialism as their only hope. If only they got to experience the middle class economy that the Boomers got growing up.

 

[Gozaburo]

That is an INSANE statement. There is virtually nothing that Harris and Romney have in common in terms of actual policy.

Romney was a vulture capitalist who took pride in chewing up working class jobs and spitting them out overseas. He would have continued the disastrous Bush policies from the 2000s.

They're both pro:

• Zionist
• Ukraine/Taiwan
• American Imperialism (as an extension of the former 2 bullet points)
• Immigration
• Free Trade
• Most social liberalism (with an iffy exception here on abortion)
• Deindustrialization (no coherent plan from either here)
• Both have corporate donors and had campaigns flush with money. Lol at either being "pro working class".
• etc. etc.

They're different on:

• Abortion (once again, iffy. Romney has changed his tune in recent years)
• Tax cuts

So no, it isn't "INSANE". You seem more interested in rhetoric than assessing the nuances in how governing is actually conducted. Just call a spade a spade. She's a neoliberal, much like Romney, and while they have performative differences in rhetoric they would govern in almost the exact same way. Good ol' fashioned non-toxic, inoffensive American neoliberalism.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Remember "Let Detroit go bankrupt"? Great way to win the Midwest, Romney!

Or 47% of Americans are freeloaders that depend on the government....which included military members based on Romney's definition.

It seems like ancient history, but people shouldn't forget how insane the Republican Party was BEFORE Trump.

 

[Allan]

I dunno....the Repug insanity of the past 30 years has made socialism look a lot more attractive.

There is absolutely no safety net at all for young people in this country anymore. People graduate from college with mountains of debt and starting salaries that completely suck. I would not be opposed to "socialism" if I was young person starting out in this country.

So the elements of "socialism" that are attractive include affordable (or even free) tertiary education as well as universal healthcare.

But in America you can't say the word "Socialist" out loud.

 

[Gozaburo]

Agreed. Unfettered capitalism has screwed over a lot of young people, and some of them see socialism as their only hope. If only they got to experience the middle class economy that the Boomers got growing up.

The middle class has fundamentally changed because of how the economy is restructured due to deindustrialization. Anything outside of reindustrialization will be insufficient, the governing economic ideology doesn't really matter.

America still does export one thing en masse and that one thing is technology. There's a reason why younger people (including myself) fiend after tech jobs and California's economy is obscenely large. For young people working in the tech industry and tech-adjacent spaces, they have no problems breaking into the middle class and beyond. Life for me is easy, money is no problem.

Not sure what everyone else plans to do in the rat race service economy. Nothing is going to change while people quibble over esoteric economic ideology instead of attempting to understand the fundamental restructuring of our economy over the past ~50 years.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

They're both pro:

• Zionist
• Ukraine/Taiwan
• American Imperialism (as an extension of the former 2 bullet points)
• Immigration
• Free Trade
• Most social liberalism (with an iffy exception here on abortion)
• Deindustrialization (no coherent plan from either here)
• Both have corporate donors and had campaigns flush with money. Lol at either being "pro working class".
• etc. etc.

They're different on:

• Abortion (once again, iffy. Romney has changed his tune in recent years)
• Tax cuts

So no, it isn't "INSANE". You seem more interested in rhetoric than assessing the nuances in how governing is actually conducted. Just call a spade a spade. She's a neoliberal, much like Romney, and while they have performative differences in rhetoric they would govern in almost the exact same way. Good ol' fashioned non-toxic, inoffensive American neoliberalism.

Weak. And a lot of what you listed aren't policies..."Zionist"??? What the hell does that mean?

You're pretending all of these "policies" carry equal weight, when tax cuts and abortion are two MAJOR, defining issues in modern American politics. Much more so than most of the other policies you listed.

And Romney and Harris are also light years apart in terms of green jobs and the environment, which is also a major issue. Romney criticized Obama for not doing more oil drilling while the planet continues to burn....utter stupidity.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It appears they aren't cultists.

Someone needs to make sure Trump is told what "untenable" means.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

So the elements of "socialism" that are attractive include affordable (or even free) tertiary education as well as universal healthcare.

But in America you can't say the word "Socialist" out loud.

Only because we have allowed the insane MAGA Repug Party to control this debate for far too long.

 

[Gozaburo]

Weak. And a lot of what you listed aren't policies..."Zionist"??? What the hell does that mean?

You genuinely don't know what a Zionist is?

You're pretending all of these "policies" carry equal weight, when tax cuts and abortion are two MAJOR, defining issues in modern American politics. Much more so than most of the other policies you listed.

Not really. Biden's proposed tax on the wealthy (according to his own words) would raise $500 billion over 10 years, which is literally NOTHING. That assumes the people being taxed would even care to pay and not fight for every penny possible in the courts. Trump's tax cuts got me approximately ~$3,500 more a year as an upper middle class individual. That's nice, but hardly that big of a deal. Tax policy in general doesn't change very much between administrations.

Domestic industry, foreign policy, immigration policy, and trade policy are all exponentially more important and influential than abortion in terms of what is important for actually managing the most powerful nation on planet Earth. The fact that you would contest this is either a demonstration of laughable ignorance and stupidity or an indictment of the partisan echo chamber you consume politics in. Either way, you're wrong and look dumb.

And Romney and Harris are also light years apart in terms of green jobs and the environment, which is also a major issue. Romney criticized Obama for not doing more oil drilling while the planet continues to burn....utter stupidity.

Straight up wrong. Romney may not be as green as Kamala, but he's far more progressive than the average Republican milieu: https://www.romney.senate.gov/clean-air-energy-and-water/

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

You genuinely don't know what a Zionist is?

Someone who supports Israel's right to exist...which describes 99.9% of American politicians.

Not really. Biden's proposed tax on the wealthy (according to his own words) would raise $500 billion over 10 years, which is literally NOTHING. That assumes the people being taxed would even care to pay and not fight for every penny possible in the courts. Trump's tax cuts got me approximately ~$3,500 more a year as an upper middle class individual. That's nice, but hardly that big of a deal. Tax policy in general doesn't change very much between administrations.

What's your point??? Republicans want to LOWER taxes on the rich!

Domestic industry, foreign policy, immigration policy, and trade policy are all exponentially more important and influential than abortion in terms of what is important for actually managing the most powerful nation on planet Earth. The fact that you would contest this is either a demonstration of laughable ignorance and stupidity or an indictment of the partisan echo chamber you consume politics in. Either way, you're wrong and look dumb.

There is a lot of disagreement between Harris and Romney on these issues. You're being way too simplistic.

And in 2024, abortion is far bigger than all of these issues.

Straight up wrong. Romney may not be as green as Kamala, but he's far more progressive than the average Republican milieu: https://www.romney.senate.gov/clean-air-energy-and-water/

Which means nothing. Just because Romney is not as crazy as the rest of MAGA does not make him reasonable when it comes to the environment, either.

 

[Gozaburo]

Someone who supports Israel's right to exist...which describes 99.9% of American politicians.

Lmao.

What's your point??? Republicans want to LOWER taxes on the rich!

You claimed tax policy was a super big issue or something. I'm outlining how federal tax policy actually doesn't matter that much between these candidates, even if we assume Romney/Kamala are polar opposites (they aren't).

There is a lot of disagreement between Harris and Romney on these issues. You're being way too simplistic.

And in 2024, abortion is far bigger than all of these issues.

There is not substantive disagreement on any of these issues between Harris and Romney. At best, they quibble about the particulars.

Abortion might poll as a bigger issue amongst the peasantry, but it is not more important in terms of what it takes to actually govern the country. Not relevant in any case, as Romney has softened considerably on the abortion question over the years. They're far closer to one another on abortion than you seem to know.

Which means nothing. Just because Romney is not as crazy as the rest of MAGA does not make him reasonable when it comes to the environment, either.

Right, so I've totally routed every single one of your statements (calling them arguments would be way too charitable) and now we get to the point where you start to move the goal posts because your ego is more important than considering the reality that you're wrong.

At least at this point we can take away the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant. It's clear you're a room temperature IQ partisan who is more interested in poplitics and personalities than political philosophy and governance.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

You claimed tax policy was a super big issue or something. I'm outlining how federal tax policy actually doesn't matter that much between these candidates, even if we assume Romney/Kamala are polar opposites (they aren't).

Raising taxes on the rich is not the same as lowering taxes on the rich. You obviously have no idea what you're saying at this point.

There is not substantive disagreement on any of these issues between Harris and Romney. At best, they quibble about the particulars.

More stupidity. Those "particulars" result in substantive disagreement.

Abortion might poll as a bigger issue amongst the peasantry, but it is not more important in terms of what it takes to actually govern the country.

More arcane gobbledy goop. You speak a lot, but say NOTHING.

Not relevant in any case, as Romney has softened considerably on the abortion question over the years. They're far closer to one another on abortion than you seem to know.

Pure insanity. Romney is a Mormon. His position on abortion is probably more conservative than many MAGAts.

Right, so I've totally routed every single one of your statements (calling them arguments would be way too charitable) and now we get to the point where you start to move the goal posts because your ego is more important than considering the reality that you're wrong.

In your mind only. You speak in moronic flatulent language, pretending you know something when you don't.

Pretending that Romney is somehow a liberal like Harris because he isn't as crazy as MAGA Republicans is utterly stupid.

At least at this point we can take away the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant. It's clear you're a room temperature IQ partisan who is more interested in poplitics and personalities than political philosophy and governance.

Someone calls you out on your vapid bullshit, so you resort to personal insults.

 

[devildavid]

Yeah we agree - 2024 Trump doesn't represent anything close to populism. His campaign is certainly a far cry from where he was after his announcement in 15/16. The essence of my post was that after years of turmoil, Kamala is a return to moderate neoliberalism. She's not separable from someone like Mitt Romney on most of the big issues.

This election will be the final nail in the coffin for Trumpian moderate-right populism and Bernie Bro democratic left populism. Neither movements managed to really institutionalize their politics and both can be considered abject failures from a revolutionary perspective.

That is not a problem. Romney was a competent politician who unfortunately was driven out by Trumpism. Sanders had actual ideas about things he wanted to put in place. He was also someone who could work within the system to possibly get incremental movement toward what he wanted, but probably didn’t have the personality or political persuasiveness to get it done. Trump is just a demagogue who represents hate and divisiveness fueled by those who simply want to shit on government but have no real ideas how to move forward. He had no real ideas that he was interested in implementing. He was just in it for the show and the attention. He and his followers represent trolling politics that gets nothing accomplished. There is nothing moderate-right about Trump or his followers. Just a bunch of extremist trolling and incompetence.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

That isn't super surprising.

Kamala's speech, for the most part, couldn't be separated from a speech at the RNC if we went back to 2004. She's a neoliberal moderate with a little bit of paint to make her more appealing to younger voters.

She's a great pick for people looking to reject populism in favor of more status quo neoliberalism. Whether or not that's best for the long term trajectory of the empire remains to be seen.

What would be best for long term national sustainability would be a huge helping of, “get the money out of our f#####g politics”.

Then maybe we could address this second Gilded Age corporatist greed that is threatening a second Great Depression.

Avoiding that would go along way to keeping the nation on a solid footing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Not surprising, there is no reason for anyone but his cult to vote for Trump.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I dunno....the Repug insanity of the past 30 years has made socialism look a lot more attractive.

There is absolutely no safety net at all for young people in this country anymore. People graduate from college with mountains of debt and starting salaries that completely suck. I would not be opposed to "socialism" if I was young person starting out in this country.

Yes you would, if required to live it.

Democracy (with a side helping of democratic socialism) and capitalism is the best the world currently has to offer. The problem is you’ve never seen it (if you’re younger) or forgotten what it looks like (if you’re older). I haven’t though. I have a damn fine memory of it.

We haven’t practiced capitalism in the US since the 80’s (and it was starting to get sickly then). We utilize its greedy bastard cousin, corporatism, these days. We are making a quite an effort to pass democracy into the trash heap as well. Actual democracies are no where near as politically corrupt as we are these days. We are practically a third world hunta in that department. Well, I might be exaggerating a bit there, but not much.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Yes you would, if required to live it.

Democracy (with a side helping of democratic socialism) and capitalism is the best the world currently has to offer. The problem is you’ve never seen it (if you’re younger) or forgotten what it looks like (if you’re older). I haven’t though. I have a damn fine memory of it.

We haven’t practiced capitalism in the US since the 80’s (and it was starting to get sickly then). We utilize its greedy bastard cousin, corporatism, these days. We are making a quite an effort to pass democracy into the trash heap as well. Actual democracies are no where near as politically corrupt as we are these days. We are practically a third world hunta in that department. Well, I might be exaggerating a bit there, but not much.

Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Too many Americans seem to falsely believe that they are.

Social Security is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid is socialism.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So the elements of "socialism" that are attractive include affordable (or even free) tertiary education as well as universal healthcare.

But in America you can't say the word "Socialist" out loud.

Free education and universal health care are both part of democratic socialism as well. Coming without the totalitarian component where Marxism fails because large populations require representative leadership and the second you have the singular proletariat party running the show you’ve created a special class that wants to remain special and there goes Marxism out the window. Even Karl Marx admitted before he died that his socialist views could never function outside a small community. (Kibbutz in Israel operate on Marxist policy - they can because they are small - no representative class, each cast their vote on each matter for themselves).

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Free education and universal health care are both part of democratic socialism as well. Coming without the totalitarian component where Marxism fails because large populations require representative leadership and the second you have the singular proletariat party running the show you’ve created a special class that wants to remain special and there goes Marxism out the window. Even Karl Marx admitted before he died that his socialist views could never function outside a small community. (Kibbutz in Israel operate on Marxist policy - they can because they are small - no representative class, each cast their vote on each matter for themselves).

You're conflating communism with socialism.

 

[Ginger Ale]

It's always been MAGA and then the rest of America, and it will continue to be. MAGAs aren't Republican, they're Trumplican.

MAGA is a far from Republican as Democrats are from MAGA.

This election will be MAGA vs all he's shit on! Paybacks are a bitch! Kamala represents that new kid at school who takes out the old bully and everyone benefits from it!! There will be lots of cheering in November!!

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You're conflating communism with socialism.

No, actually I’m not. They are both founded in Marxism. They are both very much related. They have only minor differences. I have never been witness to a socialist government that didn’t slide to communism after a very brief time. The one “party of the proletariat” comes into being with the representative body and *poof* communism, or it breaks down and there is one leader, no party, and you get flat out dictatorship.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Too many Americans seem to falsely believe that they are.

Social Security is socialism. Medicare and Medicaid is socialism.

If you read back I said that myself, I believe to you, earlier today.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

If you read back I said that myself, I believe to you, earlier today.

I don't think so, unless you're referring to post #41.

 

[Citizen]

That isn't super surprising.

Kamala's speech, for the most part, couldn't be separated from a speech at the RNC if we went back to 2004. She's a neoliberal moderate with a little bit of paint to make her more appealing to younger voters.

She's a great pick for people looking to reject populism in favor of more status quo neoliberalism. Whether or not that's best for the long term trajectory of the empire remains to be seen.

The way I look at it is anyone but trump

 

[Deuce]

Yeah we agree - 2024 Trump doesn't represent anything close to populism. His campaign is certainly a far cry from where he was after his announcement in 15/16. The essence of my post was that after years of turmoil, Kamala is a return to moderate neoliberalism. She's not separable from someone like Mitt Romney on most of the big issues.

This election will be the final nail in the coffin for Trumpian moderate-right populism and Bernie Bro democratic left populism. Neither movements managed to really institutionalize their politics and both can be considered abject failures from a revolutionary perspective.

Oh so not a radical socialist? LMAO